Sometimes You Have To Respond To Ignorance

created image of My version of Tim is on the Internet meme

Letters to the Editor of a local newspaper was one of our first ‘comment sections’ where regular readers could share their various viewpoints tempered with moderation by the newspaper staff. Today, even with prescreening, the letter section sometimes resembles the fact free fantasizes we find in places like FOX ‘news’, news websites and Facebook. Some friends think the ignorant comments should be ignored but I think one should respond to ignorance in some cases like I did to a recent letter to the editor about the US Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling.

A gentleman had the following letter published in my local paper this past week:

I have read the news articles in The Courier concerning Kim Davis, who was actually jailed for refusing to issue, or sign, “marriage” licenses to gay couples.

Incidentally, these news articles were written by Associated Press writers. We all know, or should know, that all AP articles are written to please the far left agenda.

One such article stated “without alienating the majority of Americans who support gay marriage.” If a fair vote could be taken nationwide, gay marriage would lose by 60-75 percent. So much for the AP.

But lets get back to the beginning. The gay marriage question should never have been accepted by the Supreme Court. I was always under the impression that the Supreme Court’s function was to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Naturally, this was not possible (to get the desired outcome to the gay activists) because they knew it would never pass Congress.

Therefore, to me, this decision by the Supreme Court is simply an opinion and strictly speaking, was passed by that ninth vote, or one vote.

So we all have to live with this ridiculous decision because of one vote from a group of nine people who shouldn’t even have been asked.

Now gay activists are ruining reputations, businessess and countless others. These same people, just a few short years ago, asked for kind consideration.

Why do I hate civil rights?

Ruling ruining reputations

There was so much wrong with this letter that I had to respond and my letter was published the next day:

Ralph Anderson’s letter, “Ruling ruining reputations,” (Sept. 21), about the Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court decision, is based on false premises.

First, it is well known that the Associated Press, if they take a side in a story, support the conservative viewpoint.

Unfortunately for Anderson, the actual facts don’t have a “side.”

Support for same-sex marriage legality has been in the 50 to 60 percent range since 2012. A majority of Americans polled do support same-sex marriage. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 74 percent of those polled believe equality under the law is more important than someone’s religious beliefs.

Obergefell v. Hodges applied the 14th Amendment to marriages. The U.S. Supreme Court hears cases involving conflicts in civil rights like this case. It had already ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and that ruling influenced the many state cases challenging state same-sex marriage bans.

As the judge in the California Proposition 8 case ruled in 2010: “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights…” A majority on the Supreme Court agreed. 

Calling out people and businesses who decide to discriminate isn’t a bad thing. Gay activists didn’t force people like Kim Davis to break the law or a business to discriminate against LGBT people.

The fault lies entirely with the bigots, and getting exposed to the public is a bed of their own making.

Anderson is free to maintain his fantasy that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision “is simply an opinion,” and I will keep mine where Al Gore actually won the 2000 election and Hobby Lobby religious rights [don’t] trump their employee’s health insurance plan.

Letter Based On False Premises

As the old saying goes, Mr. Anderson is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I know I didn’t change the mind of the guy, but in my mind I wasn’t really talking to him.

I think that wrong information should be responded to especially if the remarks are made in public like in a letters section of a newspaper. I would want the newspaper staff to weed out the patently false letters but since they don’t, for whatever reason, then those of us who know the truth must speak out.

There are some people who don’t keep up on everything going on in the world and they may form one view based on only hearing one side of an issue.

Letters I write or comments on websites I make might be seen as a waste of time but the long term goal of making sure all the information is out there is too important to just ignore the ignorance.